Why there is no '个' in this sentence: 这孩子像他爸爸。?

[miguelusque]

Hi!

I was reading a 'word of the day page' when I noticed that the following example does not make use of the '个' character:

- 这孩子像他爸爸。

I thought that the correct sentence would be:

- 这个孩子像他爸爸。

Why can 个 be omitted in this sentence?

Thanks in advance,

Miguel Ángel

[CathaySpecific]

Miguel - 

This is a great example of how written and spoken language differ.  This is true to an extent in all languages - with Chinese, one of the main drivers is how "expensive" it is to write the characters - hence the written language tends toward brevity and elimination of "unnecessary" characters.  In today's computerized age, writing each character is not as expensive as before, but print real estate is still at a premium, and this preference for conciseness is instinctively ingrained in all "native writers". 

So the short answer is, 个 was omitted because it wasn't necessary to convey the meaning.  You are absolutely right, in speech, the measure word would not be omitted:

 

这个孩子像他爸爸

 

You could take this further: why was 的 omitted?  Again, not necessary for the reader, but in speech most likely you would hear:

 

这个孩子像他的爸爸

 

And one more thing - the meaning of 像 is obvious in writing, but in speech it could be confused for a homophone such as 向 (to face, to turn toward), or even 相 (to appraise, to tell someone's fortune), so I think the speaker would subconsciously add an adverb to make the meaning unmistakable:

 

这个孩子很像他的爸爸

 

 

 

Cheers

 

 

ps:  so what was the "word of the day"?  I'm guessing it was 像   :-)

[陳德聰]

I don't fully agree with #2. I would actually be quite surprised to hear anyone say 這個孩子像他的爸爸. I think the weird speculation about 像 being ambiguous is also not really true. Unless there is a bunch of other stuff happening in a second half of the sentence... I don't see any need to disambiguate it at all.

[CathaySpecific]

well of course it's speculation, you're stating the obvious - but my point remains that a speaker would not be as stingy with characters (i.e. with syllables) as the writer.

 

you'd be "surprised to hear anyone say" 他的爸爸.  really?  that's a bit of hyperbole.  that phrase was spoken worldwide about 1,000 times in the time it took me to type this reply.

 

I do think that a speaker would naturally use 很像 instead of just plain 像, and not only to disambiguate, but to emphasize his point.  Same as in English - why would you waste breath to establish that child is like his father (duuh).  But you might go out of your way to state that he or she is VERY SIMILAR, or BEARS AN UNCANNY RESEMBLANCE to ...

[roddy]

A Comprehensive Grammar of Chinese, Routledge, briefly copied out:

 

A speaker/writer can create expressions modelled on this omission pattern when...

a) Using 一 with a quadrisyllabic rhythm  - 这一问题

b) When using 这/那 in colloquial speech without 一. 这年纪/那事儿

 

Absolutely no need to waffle on about the expense of writing the extra character (in which case anyway, why the second  爸?). The answer to the question "Why can 个 be omitted in this sentence?" is simply "You can do that if you're being informal and you don't use 一", or, if you're an underqualified Chinese teacher, "Oh, you just can. I'm not sure why." Or some variant of that, depending what grammar book you have to hand, or what non-conforming example you happen to have heard recently. 

 

I know grammar books aren't fashionable, but let's not give up on them entirely. 

 

Edit: as for 的 there, perfectly normal to omit it. I think you're barking up the wrong tree to say it would have been different in speech - this looks very much like written-down speech, and if anything the omission is more likely in spoken language. 

[Pedroski]

Why people sometimes don't use the 量词 is interesting. The corollary question interests me much more: Why does Chinese have all these 量词, when I can interpret 这孩子 quite well as 'that child'?

 

Maybe it is tied up with expressions like '一到的‘ = once we arrived？ 个 seems to be not so old a character, and to mean 'of', but all the other 量词？

[davoosh]

I may be wrong but it seems Chinese is going through a bit of a change regarding measure words? Generic measure words like 個 seem to be used a lot even where another more 'specific' measure word might exist, maybe the dropping of measure words it's just an extension of this trend? Probably best just to take it at face value and look out for it - i.e. sometimes 個 is dropped.

[li3wei1]

Why does Chinese have all these 量词, when I can interpret 这孩子 quite well as 'that child'?

 

That's a very good question, Pedroski. I'm sure when the Chinese realise how clever you are, they'll correct their silly language. The real question is, why do they bother having a language of their own at all, when English works perfectly well for you?

[Demonic_Duck]

Disagree almost entirely with @CathaySpecific. I would say that the difference is between formal and informal usage, rather than written and spoken communication. Written communication tends towards the formal, and thus would be more likely to include the classifier in this instance, as the dropping of the classifier is a mark of informality.* Meanwhile, spoken communication tends towards informality, and so would be more likely to drop the classifier.

 

“的” is very rarely used with informal names for family relations. “这是我妈妈” sounds natural. “这是我的妈妈” sounds a little weird and stilted.

 

Meanwhile, there is no ambiguity in “像”, assuming it is a standalone sentence. On the other hand, if the sentence was “这孩子xiàng他爸爸要糖果”, then it would obviously be “向”, and again, there would be no ambiguity.

 

*Though this is an informal usage of dropping classifiers, there are also certain formal circumstances in which classifiers are dropped, such as newspaper headlines and Classical Chinese-influenced constructions. This example very obviously does not fit into either of those categories, though.

[Demonic_Duck]

I may be wrong but it seems Chinese is going through a bit of a change regarding measure words? Generic measure words like 個 seem to be used a lot even where another more 'specific' measure word might exist, maybe the dropping of measure words it's just an extension of this trend? Probably best just to take it at face value and look out for it - i.e. sometimes 個 is dropped.

 

I've heard this point made before, and there is probably something to it. However, I don't see this trend towards generic classifiers influencing formal written language any time soon (that is to say, in those parts of formal written language where it's not already customary to drop the classifier, i.e. everything other than Classical Chinese-like constructions and headlines). After all, it often takes a long time before formal written language "catches up" with spoken language in terms of usage trends, and there will always be prescriptivist grammarians who will be there to hold back the tide of change as long as they possibly can.

[davoosh]

I've done a few searches of 這+noun without a measure word and it seems it is common in both a colloquial and formal style.

 

Some examples:

 

從這窗戶就能看到海景

在這國家，商人比一切都有力量

這電腦病毒也太有個性了吧

這學生的回答讓我嚇到了

這書能讓你戒煙

[陳德聰]

Yeah I tend to wonder what qualifies CathaySpecific to make the suggestions in #2 that are counter to what are very natural language intuitions...

[imron]

Why does Chinese have all these 量词, when I can interpret 这孩子 quite well as 'that child'?

The measure word adds more specificity.  Compare:

 

This piece of paper vs  This paper.

This slice of toast vs This toast.

 

In both versions you can understand quite well exactly what is being talked about.  That doesn't mean you would only use one and never the other.

 

Language isn't about reducing your words to the absolute minimum required for understanding - and in fact would be quite boring if it was.

[Silent]

 

You could take this further: why was 的 omitted?  Again, not necessary for the reader, but in speech most likely you would hear:

 

这个孩子像他的爸爸

 

Is this true? Probably 的 is used aplenty, but I'm told that when there is 'closeness'  omitting 的 is better. So basically 我妈妈， 我妹妹， 我女朋友 but 我的老师， 我的老板 etc.

[miguelusque]

Hi Silent,

 

    Completely agree with the use of 的. My Chinese teacher (who is also Chinese) explained me the same with people you are very close to.

 

    In the text book we are using in our course (New Chinese Practical Reader) you can find several examples of the omission of 的.

 

    Some examples are:

 

• 你爸爸，妈妈好吗？
• 你男朋友呢？
• 这是我哥哥。
• 我们老师都是中国人。

    I think that it would be possible to add 的 in any of these examples, but it is not really done because of the closeness of the speaker with the person he is referring to.

 

    Hope it helps.

 

Miguel Ángel

[CathaySpecific]

I will concede the point about 的 not being necessary in designating family relations, everyone seems to be in the same camp on that one.

 

davoosh:

I've done a few searches of 這+noun without a measure word and it seems it is common in both a colloquial and formal style.

 

 

 

Thanks, this would support the view that omitting measure words is not a formal vs. informal thing, but rather a shortcut made in writing, literary shorthand.  My native speaking better half confirms that the examples you listed above would be rarely if ever spoken without a measure word.

 

I also like roddy's grammar book find, could this be 這一孩子, morphing into 這孩子?  Perhaps.

[Pedroski]

I think, to use your examples， in:

 

This piece of paper vs  This paper. 'This piece is ripped.' 'Piece of what?'

This slice of toast vs This toast.  'This slice is burnt.' 'Slice of what?'

 

'piece, slice' are what we are talking about, and 'of paper, of toast' are descriptive elements for said '量词‘. ‘of' was used to translate Latin 'de, ex', （about which not everyone was happy）. It has come to represent the genitive case, which is always adjectival in its use.

 

Are you suggesting the noun in Chinese specifies the 量词？Sometimes, in Chinese, I wonder about which direction '的‘ points, that is to say, which element is descriptive, to the left or to the right of '的‘. I can't give examples right now, but sometimes it really seems to me the right side describes the left side, but I am just a learner.

 

I was actually more interested in how Chinese acquired so many 量词。What was the driving force, the raison d'être? Are there theories about this?

[陳德聰]

Google.

[roddy]

"My native speaking better half confirms"

Second-hand evidence from a random native speaker... I'm afraid it's now obligatory you have your native-speaking better-half sign up here. 

[Demonic_Duck]

@davoosh's example sentences all look informal to me.